As I have shown, the so-called rapprochement period was anything but. The US continued to remain hostile to the independent spirit of Libya – as evidenced most obviously by Gaddafi’s opposition to the presence of US and European military forces in Africa – and it now seems that they and the British used this period to prepare the ground for the war that eventually took place in 2011....'

'...Lesson two: For the West, regime change has become a euphemism for total societal destruction

I try to avoid the term ‘regime change’, as it implies a change of one ‘regime’ (usually understood as relatively functional and stable state, albeit a potentially ruthless one) to another. In the recent history of so-called ‘regime changes’ by the West, this has never happened. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, ‘regimes’ have not been replaced by other ‘regimes’, but have rather been destroyed and replaced instead by ‘failed states’, where security is largely non-existent, and no single armed force is strong enough to constitute itself as a ‘state’ in the traditional sense of establishing a monopoly of legitimate violence. This in turn leads to further societal and sectarian divisions emerging, as no group feels protected by the state, and each look instead to a militia who will defend their specific locality, tribe or sect – and thus the problem perpetuates itself, with the insecurity generated by the presence of some powerful militias leading to the creation of others. The result, therefore, is the total breakdown of national society, with not only security, but all government functions becoming increasingly difficult to carry out....'

'....Lesson three – Once Western military powers get their foot in the door, they won’t leave voluntarily until the state has been destroyed

Although the war on Libya was begun under the authorisation of UN Security Council resolution (1973), it is important to note that this resolution only authorised the establishment of a no-fly zone and the prevention of Libyan state forces entering Benghazi. This was achieved within days. Everything that NATO did subsequently was beyond the terms of the resolution and therefore illegal; a point that was made vehemently by many who had supported (or at least not opposed) the resolution, including Russia, China, South Africa and even elements within the Arab League.

Regardless of the pretext, once the US and UK are militarily involved in a country on their hit list, they should not be expected to stick to that pretext. For them, UNSC 1973 allowed them to bomb Libya....'

'....Lesson four - State destruction cannot be achieved without ground forces

A little noted aspect of the Libyan war (which has, however, been covered in detail by Horace Campbell) is the fact that the capital, Tripoli, was taken largely by Qatari ground forces co-ordinated by French and British special forces (in direct contravention of UNSC 1973). Indeed, no part of Libya was held by the rebels alone for any significant length of time without massive NATO bombardment of Libyan state forces; after the first three weeks, once the Libyan army got on top of the insurgency, not a single battle was won by the rebels until NATO started bombing. Even then, rebels could generally only take towns if NATO forces had completely destroyed the resistance first – and would still often be chased out again by the Libyan army a few days later. This is despite the fact that many of the Misrata militias were under the direct command of British special forces.

This state of affairs meant the taking of the capital was always going to be deeply problematic. The solution was Operation Mermaid Dawn – an invasion of Tripoli in late August by Qatari ground forces, French intelligence and the British SAS, preceded by several days of intensified airstrikes. Whilst it is true that local collaborators joined in once the invasion was on the way, and indeed some rebel units had prior knowledge, the reality is that the fall of Tripoli was overwhelmingly a foreign planned and executed operation.

This is all highly relevant to the situation in Syria right now. For most of this year, momentum in the Syrian war had been on the side of the government, most obviously in its retaking of the former rebel stronghold of Homs in May.....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Ruling the country for for 41 years until
his demise in October 2011, Muammar
Gaddafi did some truly amazing things
for his country and repeatedly tried to
unite and empower the whole of Africa.
So despite what you’ve heard on the
radio, seen in the media or on the TV
Gaddafi did some powerful things that
were not very reminiscent of a vicious
dictator.
Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya
that you may not know about…
1. In Libya a home is
considered a natural human
right
In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The
house is a basic need of both the
individual and the family, therefore it
should not be owned by
others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the
formal leader’s political philosophy, it
was first published in 1975 and was
intended reading for all Libyans even
being included in the national curriculum.
2. Education and medical
treatment were all free
Under Gaddafi’s reign Libya could boast
one of the best healthcare services in the
Arab and African world. Also if a Libyan
citizen could not access the desired
educational course or correct medical
treatment in Libya they were funded to
go abroad.
3. Gaddafi carried out the
worlds largest irrigation
project
The largest irrigation system in the world
also known as the great manmade river
was designed to make water readily
available to all Libyan’s across the
entire country. It was funded by the
Gaddafi government and it said that
Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth
wonder of the world”.
4. It was free to start a
farming business
If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they
were given a house, farm land and live
stock and seeds all free of charge.
5. A bursary was given to
mothers with newborn
babies
When a Libyan woman gave birth she
was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself
and the child.
6. Electricity was free
Electricity was free in Libya meaning
absolutely no electric bills!
7. Cheap petrol
During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol
in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars)
per litre.
8. Gaddafi raised the level of
education
Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were
literate. He bought that figure up to 87%
under his rule with 25% earning
university degrees.
9. Libya had It’s own state
bank
Libya was the only country in the world
to have a bank owned by the state
meaning they were able to give loans to
citizens at zero percent interest by law
and they had no external debt.
10. The gold dinar
Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely
demise Gaddafi was trying to introduce a
single African currency made of gold.
Following in the foot steps of the late
great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first
coined the term ”United States of Africa”.
Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only
trade in the African gold Dinar – a move
which would have thrown the world
economy into chaos.
The Dinar was widely opposed by the
‘elite’ of today’s society and who could
blame them. African nations would have
finally had the power to bring itself out
of debt and poverty and only trade in
this precious commodity. They would
have been able to finally say ‘no’ to
external exploitation and charge
whatever they felt suitable for precious
resources. It has been said that the gold
Dinar was the real reason for the NATO
led rebellion, in a bid to oust the
outspoken leader.
SEE ALSO: The truth about Gaddafi and
Libya (watch and learn)_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

The Geneva peace talks, meant to resolve the crisis in Libya where rival militias and their respective governments are at war over the control of the country, so far failed to be fruitful. It in fact is believed that the lame leading the blind would have yielded better results than the UN-brokered mediation, facilitated by a Bilderberg Group member named Bernardino Léon, between a government of CIA assets and a rival government of Al Qaeda terrorists and the like. The latter, self-proclaimed Tripoli-based government, on January 19 proposed to move the talks from Geneva to the Libyan desert town of Ghat, which led to the suspension of the dialogue. Two days earlier the rival factions called for a ceasefire starting on January 18 at midnight, even though the Libya Dawn militia, which is terrorizing the capital of Tripoli since last July, was not represented at the talks. And with ongoing heavy fighting in several Libyan cities - including near Ghat - as well as heavy clashes near oil ports and fields, the ceasefire already has proven to be just another empty notion. The only clear outcome of the talks so far seems to be that Libya Dawn was given the opportunity to run away with the bone that the other factions were feebly negotiating on in Geneva.

But it wasn't the representatives of the Libya Dawn militia that were the big absentee at the Geneva peace talks. While a motley crew of terrorist gangs and extremist figures was invited to the mediation, no seats were reserved for the Libyan Popular National Movement (LPNM), which was founded in early 2012 as the political body of the majority of the Libyans who support the Jamahiriya, also known as the Green Resistance. This however did not prevent the LPNM from issuing an announcement on the event. In an Arabic-language post on its official Facebook page, the movement on January 18 published an eight-point statement addressing the actual, in-country problems Libya is experiencing and the ineffectiveness and ill-informedness of the solutions that the Geneva talks try to provide, saying:

1.
In order to achieve the goals and ambitions as aimed for at the Geneva talks, meaning freedom and stability, the reconstruction of the state institutions and the law, the presence of all political parties, social forces, tribes and human rights organizations is required, as well as various political visions. At the Geneva dialogue, no opposition to the so-called February 17 revolution was present. The success of the talks depend on the majority of the Libyan people, which include:
1. Political organizations opposed to the so-called February 17 revolution and its results;
2. Representatives of the tribes and the Libyan cities.
3. Humanitarian organizations, civil society organizations and organizations concerned with refugees, displaced persons, prisoners and missing persons.
4. Independent national figures known for their patriotism and neutrality, whose participation in this dialogue we consider to be a key to success.

2.
We acknowledged there was no clear basis and no regulations for the Geneva talks; on the contrary, they merely serve the principles of the so-called February 17 revolution. First of all the interlocutors should reach a consensus on which strategy should be pursued towards the restoration of security and stability, the rebuilding of the state institutions and the defeat of the widespread terrorism throughout Libya. It is very important that the interlocutors agree on this before engaging in dialogue. The basis of dialogue is a united, independent Libya and the Libyan people's right to security, stability and self-determination and to freely choose the political system of their choice.

3.
Before thinking about any operational or political mechanisms, this dialogue should provide radical solutions leading to a ceasefire, the withdrawal of weapons and the withdrawal of the militants. It should bring all armed actions in the country to an end, because no effective political process will succeed as long as there is no control over the arms and over the formal institutions of the country.

4.
There should be consensus about all operational regulations. The problem of the militias should be addressed in a way that avoids their crimes being left unpunished, as they are crimes against the nation and its citizens. Impunity would undermine security and stability in any future opportunity.

5.
The internationally recognized Libyan parliament is elected by a small part of the Libyan people, yet it is the body entrusted with the legislation and formation of the government and all judicial and executive institutions. There should be a united government which should repeal all legislation that has led to congestion, which was imposed by force of arms on the former General National Congress, such as the Political Isolation law, the law of Transitional Justice and the law of Custody.

6.
It is impossible to create a positive political climate while tens of thousands of people are detained in secret or public prisons outside the authority of the state, and with thousands of missing persons. There is an urgent need for interlocutors to take urgent decisions to put an end to the unjust imprisonment and kidnapping. All hostages and unlawfully detained prisoners should be released, and the judiciary should take lawful and just actions regarding all parties.

7.
After the culmination of all of these procedures and after confidence building between all parties by consensus to form a national unity government in which all parties are represented in a balanced manner, a period of dialogue should be installed in order to return stability, so that the government can proceed with its tasks. The most important tasks should be the compliance management among all parties in accordance with a constitution that meets the aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom, democracy, justice and equality. The unity government should reorganize and restructure the military, the security bodies and the police institutions. It should broadcast and handle all grievances and reparations on a broad cross-section of citizens over the past years and deal with economic problems and issues of basic services to citizens throughout the country, and should culminate the political process permanently and for everyone.

8.
There should be a notice of motion to the head of the United Nations mission to become aware of the urgent need of a national unity government, without the before mentioned limited dialogue with only the pro-February 17 factions. The head of the United Nations mission should be told that the continuation of this methodology will likely lead to sliding into chaos and all-out civil war, which could be avoided if dialogue includes all political factions, so that solutions could be gradually and carefully implemented on the basis of consensus.

Taking into account that almost two million Libyans - one-third of the population - marched in support of the Jamahiriya on July 1, 2011 alone while NATO was unsuccessfully trying to bomb its rebels into power for already almost four months, those millions who currently largely live in exile and who now have reorganized themselves in the Libyan Popular National Movement, most certainly should not be excluded from any real political solution in the country. However, the UN last Friday announced that the talks "will resume on Monday, representatives of influential municipalities will hold discussions on Wednesday and armed militias will enter the talks next Friday." With the dialogue being limited again to rival groups that emerged from the so-called February 17 revolution and without a clear plan on the table, all that can be expected from the upcoming talks is further disunity, leading to more chaos, more division and more bloodshed in the once most prosperous country of Africa.

And maybe that was the plan all along. Just like Libya was bombed into the stone age under the guise of protecting civilians, lofty-sounding peace talks hosted by the UN will ultimately only contribute to the division of Libya in three parts, so that the West can gain total control over these geographically and politically weak regions, like the former spokesperson of the Jamahiriya, dr. Moussa Ibrahim, said earlier this month. A strong, united and independent Libya as it was under Gaddafi is the last thing the West wants to see, so let's not fall in the pro-peace trap again.

The horror of British foreign policy now writ large for all the world to see.
I guess China & Russia are watching very closely and teaching their populations who the really evil people are in the world

The horrors of the sea
27 April 2015
From the BBC Magazine
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32433547_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert. I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan. When he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me; instead he killed that poor innocent child.

I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union; I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10-room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied. As selfish as they were they wanted more, and they told Americans and other visitors they needed "democracy" and "freedom," never realizing it was a cut-throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest.

But they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah'a'Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people. It was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination -- from thieves who would steal from us...

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history. My little African son, Obama, wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism."

But all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following his path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jammohouriyah.

I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah'a'deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself.

In the West, some have called me "mad," "crazy," but they know the truth and continue to lie. They know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free. May Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

~ by Muammar Gaddafi, April 17, 2011 ~

Recollections of my life: Gaddafi, Sri Lanka Sunday Times, Apr 17, 2011
Author and former Princeton University professor Sam Hamod says he has received the above commentary which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi wrote to a Libyan newspaper. “I translated it, and offer it without comment, other than at least it's his side of the story...,” Hamod says.

AL GATHAFI OFFICIAL WEBSITE

THE GREEN BOOK, by Muammar Gaddafi (Part One: The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: "The Authority of the People" - The Instrument of Governing/Parliaments/The Party/Class/Plebiscites/Popular Conferences & People's Committees/The Law of Society/Who Supervises the Conduct of Society?/How Can Society Redirect its Course When Deviations From its Laws Occur?/The Press...)

A group of U.S. commandos who landed in Libya on Monday were ordered to leave almost immediately because of a possible mix-up between the Libyan air force and army, U.S. and Libyan officials said Thursday.

Senior U.S. defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the incident to NBC News after the Libyan Air Force posted pictures to its Facebook page appearing to show the group of U.S. Special Operations Forces at one of its air bases.

Libya has been in chaos since the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. The incident happened Monday but only came to light Thursday, just as Libya's rival parliaments signed a landmark United Nations-sponsored deal to form a government in the war-ravaged country, according to The Associated Press.

American commandos have been "in and out of Libya" for "some time now," according to the U.S. officials, but purely to advise Libyan forces rather than conduct combat operations or training.

Image: U.S. forces in Libya
An image from the Facebook page of the Libyan Air Force, showing what it said was the plane which carried U.S. military personnel to Libya on Monday. Libyan Air Force
advertisement

One U.S. defense official suggested the group was asked to leave because of a lack of communication between the base in Wattiya, where they landed, and the Libyan forces who would normally "engage" with the American advisers.

This theory appeared to mesh with the Libyan Air Force's Facebook post, which said "a U.S. military plane landed with 20 U.S. soldiers aboard … without prior coordination."

When questioned by Libyan soldiers, the Americans aid they were "in coordination with other members of the Libyan army," the Libyan Air Force said.

"The response from your heroic army stationed at Watiya base was to tell them to depart immediately and the group left , keeping their equipment with them," it added.

advertisement_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

At last, along comes the Cavalry, to control (sorry, 'prevent ISIS' controlling') Libya's oil:

'1,000 crack British troops deployed to Libyan oil fields to ‘halt the advance of ISIS’: 1,000 crack British troops deployed to Libyan oil fields to ‘halt the advance of ISIS’
'Lybian'
Led by (the ex-Colonial power) Italy, NATO goes in to 'stop ISIS getting the oil' - by, obviously, getting it themselves - doubtless under the fig-leaf of a docile 'Lybian' puppet.

Britain's 'Special Forces' are sent in to Libya, to 'stop ISIS getting the oil', but weren't sent in to Iraq to 'stop ISIS getting the oil'; and whilst the RAF has been attacking in Iraq for many months, they didn't seem able (or have the desire) to bomb 'sitting duck' lines of slow-moving oil tankers, or oil pumping and storage facilities, at virtually no risk to their pilots.
Cor blimey, something smells fishy here, Sunshine!_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

what we here always suspected HAS been confirmed...
Hillary Emails: NATO Destroyed Libya To Prevent Gold-Backed Dinar
Posted By admin On Friday, January 29, 2016 03:46 AM. Under NWO, POLITICS, Uncategorized, WORLD
http://n24.uk/?p=10573

Hillary’s emails truly are the gifts that keep on giving. While France led the proponents of the UN Security Council Resolution that would create a no-fly zone in Libya, it claimed that its primary concern was the protection of Libyan civilians (considering the current state of affairs alone, one must rethink the authenticity of this concern). As many “conspiracy theorists” will claim, one of the real reasons to go to Libya was Gaddafi’s planned gold dinar.

One of the 3,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve (where real news is sent to die quietly) has revealed evidence that NATO’s plot to overthrow Gaddafi was fueled by first their desire to quash the gold-backed African currency, and second the Libyan oil reserves.

The email in question was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”.

From Foreign Policy Journal:

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.
And here is the section of the email proving that NATO had ulterior motives for destroying Libya:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

Ergo as soon as French intel discovered Gaddafi’s dinar plans, they decided to spearhead the campaign against him- having accumulated enough good reasons to take over.

Sadly, Gaddafi had earlier warned Europe (in a “prophetic” phone conversations with Blair) that his fall would prompt the rise of Islamic extremism in the West. A warning that would go unheeded; what’s a few lives in France and Libya, if the larger goal lines the pockets of politicians and the elite so much better after all?

Sources: Free Thought Project, NY Post, FOIA, Daily Telegraph

This Article (Hillary Emails: NATO Destroyed Libya To Prevent Gold-Backed Dinar) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author(CoNN) and AnonHQ.com.

1. There was no electricity bill in Libya; electricity was free for all its citizens.

2. There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya were state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.

3. Having a home was considered a human right in Libya.

4. All newlyweds in Libya used to receive 60,000 dinar (£34,470) by the government to buy their first apartment, to help start up the family.

5. Education and medical treatments were free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25 percent of Libyans were literate. Today, the figure is 83%.

6. If Libyans wanted to take up a farming career, they would have received farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kickstart their farms... all for free.

7. If Libyans could not find the education or medical facilities they needed, the government funded them to go abroad. For it was not only paid for, but they got a £1585/month for accommodation and car allowance.

8. If a Libyan bought a car, the government used to subsidise 50 percent of the price.

9. The price of petrol in Libya was £0.09 per litre. NINE PENCE!!!!!

10. Libya had no external debt and its reserves amounted to £103 billion -which are now frozen globally.

11. If a Libyan was unable to get employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she was employed, until employment was found.

12. A portion of every Libyan oil sale was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

The MI6-funding of Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda members to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, is the main reason why David Shayler finally left MI5. It is the real ‘case that made [him] quit’. To quote David:

“Although I knew about the plot before making my decision to leave — I believed at the time that it was more MI6 ‘Boys Own’ stuff — I was nevertheless physically sickened by the fact that MI6 wanted to sponsor Islamic extremists to carry out terrorism. At around the time I was debating whether to leave because of the Victoria Brittain investigation, MI6’s David Watson told me he had in fact supplied his agent with $40,000 to buy weapons to execute the operation to assassinate Gaddafi.

“I joined the services to stop terrorism and prevent the deaths of innocent people, not to get involved in these despicable and cowardly acts. I still cannot believe that the Prime Minister has refused to take my evidence or investigate this matter as this decision has sent out a clear message to the intelligence services that they can fund terrorism; conspire to murder people with impunity; and take enormous risks with our security.

“After all, would you give an individual you hardly know — who has admitted to connections with Al Qaeda — an enormous sum to carry out a terrorist attack, when you know the group he is leading is opposed to the values of Western society? It is difficult to imagine a greater disregard and contempt for the lives and security of the British people.”

Key points

The following issues arise from David’s whistleblowing about MI6 support for Al Qaeda:
Contrary to misinformation published in some newspapers, the following account was not ‘bar-room gossip’. David’s MI6 counterpart, PT16/B David Watson, briefed him officially on the plot as it unfolded. As MI5 officers both David and I knew the serious threat the funding of Al Qaeda posed at the time.
Despite the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s denials in 1998, I have now found out that intelligence officer, , was MI6’s man Tunworth. He is a member of the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG) aka the Militant Islamic Group, an Al Qaeda affiliate based in Libya.
French intelligence has also established that leading members of the IFG like Tunworth are also members of Al Qaeda.
The MI6 agent Tunworth admitted his connections with Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda members during a debrief with his MI6 handler David Watson, in late 19952 so MI6 cannot deny it did not know what it was entering into.
At the very least, MI6 failed to realise that it had prior intelligence about an Al Qaeda coup in Libya. If successful, MI6 would have allowed Al Qaeda to take over an oil-rich state in North Africa, putting the lives of British and US citizens, in particular, at far greater risk.
By the time MI6 paid the money, Osama Bin Laden’s organisation was already known to be responsible for the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing and MI5 had set up G9C, a section dedicated to the task of defeating Bin Laden and his affiliates.
Under the 1994 Intelligence Services Act, the real James Bonds do have a licence to kill or immunity for criminal acts carried out abroad in the course of their work, provided they gain the permission of the Foreign Secretary. But without that permission they are breaking the law, should they become involved in a conspiracy to murder and to cause terrorism. In this case, they did not even seek that permission.
MI6 gave money to individuals who posed a greater threat to our lives and security — Al Qaeda — to assassinate an individual who posed a lesser threat, Colonel Gaddafi. It just doesn’t make any logical sense. In fact, it demonstrates that MI6 was motivated by revenge on Gaddafi, rather than any desire to protect British lives and national security, because he nationalised the Libyan oil industry in 1976 at the expense of BP3.
How David was briefed on the conspiracy

In summer 1995, at the height of the illegal investigation into Victoria Brittain, David was first briefed on the plot. David Watson, David’s counterpart in MI6, asked to meet to discuss an unusual case which he could not mention over the phone. At the subsequent meeting, PT16/B told David that:

A senior member of the Libyan military intelligence service had walked into the British embassy in Tunis and asked to meet the resident MI6 officer.

The Libyan ‘walk-in’ had asked for funds to lead a group of Islamic extremists in an attempted coup, which would involve the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi, the head of the Libyan state.

Although the Libyan military intelligence officer led the group, he had said he was not an Islamic extremist himself.

The Libyan had a brief MI6 record, which PT16/B thought was enough to confirm that the Libyan did have the access to the regime that he claimed.

In exchange for MI6’s support, the Libyan offered to hand over the two Lockerbie suspects after the coup. Getting them to the UK for trial had at the time been one of MI6’s objectives for about three years but there is no guarantee that the coup plotters could have done this. It is debatable whether the coup plotters would have had either the resources or expertise required to track down the suspects after their planned coup. At first, David was sceptical to the point of ennui. After all, MI6 officers had often claimed that the Lockerbie two were about to be handed over or that Gaddafi was about to die or be toppled but nothing had come of this supposedly keen and reliable intelligence.

In the following weeks, PT16/B told David that the Libyan was codenamed Tunworth. At some point in the following weeks David briefly saw the printout of MI6’s record of him. It contained around two or three separate mentions. They supported his claim to be a senior member of Libyan military intelligence but were not detailed. David checked the Libyan’s name against Durbar and Star, MI5’s records, but the service had no trace of him. David did not make any effort to remember the name because he believed that the whole thing would come to nothing as other MI6 plots had done. Watson also issued at least two CX reports detailing intelligence provided by Tunworth at his meeting with the resident MI6 officer in Tunis4. David remembers it concerned changes in personnel in the Libyan regime. MI5 had collateral for it so G9 assessed that Tunworth had some access to the regime. David takes up the story:

“Throughout this process, I briefed my line manager, G9A/1 — Jerry Mahoney until December 1995, Paul Slim, after that — about these developments. As the operation was in its infancy when Mahoney left, I don’t believe that I told him anything other than the bare basics. When briefing his successor, Paul Slim, I told him that this might be more ‘Boys’ Own stuff’ on the part of MI6 and that we shouldn’t take it too seriously although we agreed to review this in the light of new information.

“It is inconceivable that G9A/1 did not think an MI6-funded plot to engineer a coup in Libya was worthy of mentioning to his line manager, G9/0, Peter Mitchell. In turn, it is unthinkable that G9/0 did not raise the matter with his line management who would have informed his boss until the DG herself had been made aware. I wonder if it was included in the first draft of Dame Stella’s book and removed on the orders of the authorities.”

In December 1995, James Worthing, R/ME/C at MI6, circulated CX95/ 534526 report to Whitehall and other addressees, warning of a potential coup in Libya. It confirmed that a member of the rebel group gave detailed intelligence to his MI6 handler in anticipation of help from Britain. The report clearly demonstrated that Watson knew that Tunworth was planning terrorism and his group had already been involved in attempts on Gaddafi’s life:

“In late November 1995 [Tunworth’s identity removed]7 described plans, in which he was involved, to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi. […] The coup is scheduled to start at around the time of the next General People’s Congress on February 14, 1996. Coup will start with unrest in Tripoli, Misratah and Benghazi.” […]
“The coup plotters were responsible for the death of [blank -Names removed to protect security-————————blank] was about to take up the position as head of Military Intelligence when he was forced off the Tripoli-Sirte road and was killed. The 2 coup plotters involved escaped unhurt. In August 1995, 3 army captains who were part of the coup plot attempted to kill Colonel Gaddafi.”

The report then listed Libyan installations that would be attacked and described supporters in Libya’s principal cities and their occupations. The start of the coup was to be signalled through coded messages on television and radio. It also said that at least 250 British-made weapons were distributed among the plotters.

Tunworth also told his MI6 handler that:

“plotters would have cars similar to those in Gaddafi’s security entourage with fake security number plates. They would infiltrate themselves into the entourage in order to kill or arrest Gaddafi…

“One group of military personnel were being trained in the desert area near Kufra for the role of attacking Gaddafi and his entourage. The aim was to attack Gaddafi after the GPC [General People’s Congress], but before he had returned to Sirte. One officer and 20 men were being trained for this attack.”

David also remembers another MI6 CX report being issued about the plot in early 1996. It was a shopping list of the group’s requirements to carry out the coup, including the supply of weapons and basics like jeeps and tents.

Around the same time, Christmas 1995, Watson told David that he had met Tunworth, in Geneva and paid him $40,000. Jackie Barker, who had replaced Sue Thomas as G9A/15, told him that Watson had told her the same information ‘in confidence’. During routine G9/PT16 meetings around this time, officers occasionally mentioned the plot. Watson then met Tunworth on two further occasions early in 1996 in Geneva. David does not know of any further details except that Watson mentioned that he had paid ‘similar sums’ to Tunworth on each occasion. Although PT16/B never specifically mentioned it, it was tacitly understood that Watson was working with the approval of his direct line manager, PT16, Richard Bartlett.

Lack of government sanction

At some point — David can’t be sure when exactly — Watson mentioned that the ‘submission’, MI6 jargon for the letter requesting permission from the Foreign Office for otherwise illegal operations, was going to go “all the way to the top”. In about January 1996, Watson told him that the submission had been successful, indicating that the Foreign Secretary himself had signed the document permitting the operation.9 When David briefed Paul Slim on the details of the plot, he specifically drew attention to the fact that the service only had Watson’s word for this. He urged his boss to task senior MI5 management to raise the matter formally, to check that the operation was legal.

Then, in either February or March 1996, David read two, possibly three intelligence reports quoting independent sources — the Egyptian and Moroccan intelligence services. They all stated that an attack had been made on Colonel Gaddafi in Sirte, Libya. Two of the reports indicated that the attackers had tried to assassinate Gaddafi when he was part of a motorcade but had failed as they had targeted the wrong car. As a result of the explosion and the ensuing chaos in which shots were fired, civilians and security police were maimed and killed.

“At a meeting shortly after, PT16/B ventured to me in a note of triumph that Tunworth had been responsible for the attack. “Yes that was our man. We did it” was how he put it. He regarded it, curiously, as a triumph even though the objective of the operation had not been met and reporting indicated there had been civilian casualties. Despite that, I very much got the impression that this was regarded as a coup for MI6 because it was playing up to the reputation that the real James Bonds wanted to have. I then promptly passed the information on to my line manager, G9A/1. Although initially reluctant, he said he would deal with the matter. I’ve no idea whether he did. In later months, I asked Watson several times what had happened to Tunworth, but was not given answers.”

By this time, David had already decided to leave the service and was actively looking for jobs in the private sector. As a result of MI6 funding Al Qaeda, on top of the general ineptitude and bungling I had witnessed, I also decided I no longer wanted to work for intelligence services who had ceased to protect democracy and instead funded our terrorist enemies. The services are supposed to protect us, not put our lives at greater risk from terrorist attack. It was time to leave.

The MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy, Part 2

David had briefed the MoS with the bare bones of the plot in the summer of 1996 and again when preparing the disclosures of 24 August 1997. However, given the controversial and sensitive nature of the material, he had always wanted to submit it to the government for investigation. Since then, ministers and other responsible agencies like the PM’s ISC and the Cabinet Office have consistently refused to take possession of David’s evidence concerning the plot. Despite his repeatedly writing to them to inform them that elements of the services were operating outside the law.

As the authorities had shown no interest in taking his evidence, in early December 1997 David gave Mark Urban, at the time the BBC’s Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent, a full, recorded interview about the MI6/Al Qaeda plot. Then, after he had entered into negotiations, David again tried to give his evidence to the British authorities, but they repeatedly refused to take it. By June 1998, Urban had stood up key aspects of the story. Although David urged Urban to submit the documentary to the authorities for immediate clearance under the injunction, BBC management appeared reluctant to face the government and the intelligence services head-on. They sat on the programme, while they debated it internally.

By July 1998 the government had shown no real will to come to a negotiated settlement with David. In frustration at the government’s failure to discharge its democratic duties by taking his evidence and at the same time faced with BBC inertia, in July 1997 David told the MoS that he was looking into setting up an Internet site to ensure that the crimes of the intelligence services could be properly exposed.

“Nothing will threaten the security of MI5 agents or staff,” he said, “or compromise its working methods. But there are vital matters that need a public airing and the Internet is the way to do it.”

David hoped the article would prompt ministers to take his evidence. As there was no response after a week, David again told the MoS that he intended to publish his disclosures  with due care for national security  on the Internet in the US, where it would be protected under the first amendment.

“I don’t see how the Government can complain,” said David, “when I’ve been trying to talk to them for months.”

Three days later, his www.shayler.com site was hacked, before it was even up and running. Verio aka Tabnet, the service provider in the US, said that the hacking was done by a professional, after the password to gain access to the site was intercepted en route to David’s computer. There is no actual evidence to indicate that the intelligence services were responsible but they are the likeliest culprits. Hackers do not normally attack anti-establishment websites, particularly when they are not yet up and running.

On 31 July 1998, David and I met the MoS in Paris, in an effort get the MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy out to a wider audience. On the strict understanding that the newspaper submitted the story to government, David gave the paper the details of the plot (without mentioning the names of intelligence officers). Ministers refused the paper permission to publish the information in any meaningful form, while also denying the story. David also met Nick Rufford and David Leppard of The Sunday Times and gave them a briefing on the plot, with the same caveat. David comments:

“The denial and censorship do not add up12. Either the disclosure is untrue, in which case the government cannot cite national security reasons for suppressing the information. Or the disclosure is true, in which case the government has a duty to investigate exactly how British intelligence officers came to use taxpayers’ money to fund terrorism and murder innocent civilians. The government has used the injunction and the 1989 OSA to restrain the freedom of the press, in order to protect itself from embarrassment rather than protect national security.”

David’s arrest in connection with the Plot

Unbeknown to David and me, a couple of hours after he had legally13 submitted his very serious evidence to ministers, those self-same ministers sent an urgent request to extradite David for his original disclosures which had appeared almost a year earlier in the MoS. David says:

“In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how anyone could believe that our oversight arrangements work. Indeed, the act of imprisoning an individual who uses a legal route to report terrorism on the part of MI6, is hardly likely to encourage other individuals to use the system. It has all the hallmarks of despotism and tyranny.”

The next day, 1 August 1998, the French DST, the equivalent of MI5 and Special Branch, arrested David in the foyer of our hotel when he returned from watching his football team, Middlesbrough, lose 1-0 on Sky to Empoli in a pre-season friendly. He was held for over 24 hours in the Palais de Justice — most of the time in solitary — and denied access to a lawyer. The day after, he was transferred to La Santé prison in Paris’s 14th arrondissement. At the instigation of the British authorities, he was held under draconian secrecy legislation and first saw a lawyer over two days after he had been arrested. He continued to be denied access to all other visitors for most of his time in prison.

But for David’s quick thinking, I would not have known what had happened to him. He would have vanished. The DST asked him for his papers. Knowing I was waiting for his return in our hotel room, he told them his passport was in his bag upstairs (it was not). I therefore only knew he had been arrested when the DST came knocking on my door. I was not to see him again for over two months.

Two days after David was arrested, The Daily Telegraph splashed on disclosures he had given to its intelligence correspondent Michael Smith, a few weeks before, about security blunders concerning the IRA mainland bombing campaign. The Telegraph included some details of the failures but was blocked by the injunction from revealing how a number of attacks could have been prevented. Rather curiously, the paper — then edited by Charles Moore – called for David to be ‘horsewhipped’ in its leader column for providing information about security failures, which The Telegraph published in its news section.

David’s solicitor John Wadham said:

“It’s a strange coincidence that before this important story about this assassination attempt was going to break, the Government ensured that David was arrested and incommunicado.”

The New York Times breaks the story

While David languished in a prison cell, and while the disclosure had been injuncted in the British press, a public-spirited individual passed the details of the MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy to The New York Times. On 5 August 1998, it reported that the British media had been banned from reporting the plot.

Did the British government try to assassinate Col Mummar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, in February 1996 by planting a bomb under his motorcade? And did the plan go awry because agents from MI6, the foreign intelligence service, put the bomb under the wrong car, killing several Libyan bystanders?” it asked. […]

“A sweeping injunction has barred newspapers and television news programmes from publishing the embarrassing allegations about the inner workings of Britain’s security services, brought up by a disgruntled former officer. The media have been forced to discuss the allegations without actually saying what the allegations are. ‘I’ve known these things for something like 16 months, and I am not allowed to publish any of it,’ said Jonathan Holborow, editor of The Mail on Sunday.”

The paper added that the government had told the press it could report the allegations as long as it did not mention details, like the payment to Islamic extremists of around £100,000.

The Panorama programme

The BBC began intense negotiations with the government for permission to show David’s interview with Mark Urban. Only after threatening to challenge the temporary injunction through the courts, did the government back down. Two days after the publication of The New York Times article, the BBC was permitted to broadcast more details of the conspiracy in a Panorama special presented by Mark Urban. He confirmed that the Islamic group involved was the Militant (or Fighting) Islamic Group, led by Abdullah Al-Sadiq. Camille Tawil, an Arab journalist based in London, told the programme that shortly after the attack in February 1996, he received a fax from the group, claiming responsibility for the attack and naming the members of its team who had died in the attack:

“I felt it was credible information given to me but I wanted to verify the story. I contacted other Libyan groups and they gave me a similar account of what had happened. This is why I decided to publish the story.”

Panorama also reported:

“Libya has publicly accused Britain of giving refuge to the leader of the Militant Islamic Group. In response to our enquiry, the Foreign Office said it does not know whether Abdullah Al Sadiq is in this country”.

The programme also confirmed that MI6 did not get the vital permission from its ministers to carry out the attack — which is a legal requirement so the officers involved have immunity under English law.

“Two well-placed people have told me that the Tory ministers running the department at the time gave no such authorisation. […] In short, that means Britain’s intelligence service was operating completely out of control.”

Urban concluded:

“It is true of course that Shayler’s knowledge of this affair depends entirely on what the SIS man, PT16/B, told him at their meetings. But certain pieces of this Libyan jigsaw cannot easily be argued away by SIS. There was an assassination attempt. Numerous Libyan sources confirm it. Britain did have a relationship with Tunworth. Any inquiry into David Shayler’s allegation will be able to find the key CX report which detailed the plot against Gaddafi, so showing Tunworth’s inside knowledge. […]

“Only a thorough going inquiry would stand a chance of getting to the bottom of whether some intelligence officers played fast and loose with the rules. David Shayler has provided Panorama with other details about the Libyan operation and the people connected with it. Combined with our own information, it suggests that SIS have a very serious case to answer”.

The Panorama programme established that MI6 had operated outside the control of its political masters. In other words, unaccountable intelligence operatives were deciding British foreign policy, not a democratically elected government. When you think about it, this means that middle ranking intelligence officers have the power of life and death over an individual without being accountable for their actions16. While that is all very well in a James Bond film, in the real world intelligence officers are now required to operate within the law.

Separate sources confirm the story

On 9 August 1998, the MoS added still further confirmation of the plot and the payments. It reported:

“David Shayler’s revelations that MI6 tried to blow up Colonel Gaddafi were given strong credence by US intelligence sources yesterday. They insisted that, despite claims to the contrary, the British secret service was financing the group behind the attempt on the Libyan leader’s life. [According to the US] the British service [MI6] turned to the Fighting Islamic Group [FIG] and its leader, Abu Abdullah Sadiq, who was living in London.”

A separate source, a former senior analyst with American intelligence, told the paper:

“I’m sure that British intelligence has all the plausible deniability that it needs. Certainly there were contacts between MI6 and FIG.”

Yet another source in Washington told the paper that MI6 had provided ‘various kinds of support’ to FIG, including financial help.

The same day, The Sunday Times reported that it had identified one of the perpetrators of the attack as Abd Al Muhaymeen. According to the paper, he was a Libyan ‘fundamentalist’ or Islamic extremist, to use MI5 phraseology, who had trained and fought in Afghanistan. On the day, he also chose the timing of the attack.

“He waited in ambush with a group of fedaydeen from a force known as the Islamic Fighting Group. […] The group appeared to be gaining in strength and daring, mostly due to the expertise of Afghan veterans such as Al Muhaymeen. […] As the convoy approached, Al Muhaymeeen gave the word and the sounds of battle erupted. When it was over, Gaddafi had survived yet again. So had Al Muhaymeen. But several of their men lay dead on each side. So did bystanders.”

Foreign Secretary’s comments

On 9 August 1998, Robin Cook, the then Foreign Secretary, told the BBC’s Breakfast with Frost programme:

“The tale about the MI6 plot to assassinate Gaddafi is pure fantasy. First of all, let’s be clear about this claim that Shayler can bring down the government, [the claim appeared in The Sunday Times, but David never made it] the allegations are about something that is alleged to have happened not under this government but under our predecessor. […] I have pursued these allegations. I am absolutely satisfied that the previous Foreign Secretary did not authorise any such assassination attempt. I am perfectly satisfied that SIS never put forward any such proposal for an assassination attempt, nor have I seen anything in the 15 months I have been in the job which would suggest that SIS has any interest, any role or any experience over the recent decade of any such escapade. It is pure fantasy.

“I have already made my own enquiries. I have satisfied my mind. I see no basis for the reports in today’s papers about any forthcoming enquiry. There was no SIS proposal to do it and I am fairly clear that there has never been any SIS involvement. I do wish people would recognise that what is being said here is that there is somebody who has left another service, not SIS, was never in SIS, is making allegations no doubt for his own reasons. We would like to see him back in Britain in order that we can pursue those charges that have been made against him.

“I am clear these allegations have no basis in fact and secondly I am quite clear that the SIS operations that I have authorised have nothing remotely to do with the kind of fantasy that has been produced over the last two days.”

Without ever bothering to take David’s evidence, Cook repeated from The Sunday Times an allegation that David had never made: that he could ‘bring down the government’17, a tactic that Straw had used in the first use of the submission process in October 1997.

Cook also unequivocally denied the existence of any MI6 operation at all; “The tale about the MI6 plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi is pure fantasy.” There is no mention here that Cook is claiming that aspects of the story may be fantasy – such as the payments, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) later and wrongly claimed were the subject of the ‘pure fantasy’ jibe.

Without bothering to hold a proper enquiry, he was uncritically putting out the MI6 line, adding: “I am clear these allegations have no basis in fact.” Ministers cannot legally ban information that is fantasy. After all, ministers had already indicated in off-the-record briefings at the time of the Israeli Embassy disclosure that disclosures on the part of former officers, which they accept to be untrue, could not harm national security.

Indeed, when Cook said: “I am absolutely satisfied that the previous Foreign Secretary did not authorise any such assassination attempt”, he merely confirmed a key aspect of the Panorama investigation; that MI6 did not have the permission of ministers to carry out the attack, making any actions by MI6 a criminal offence. Although Cook then claimed he was ‘fairly clear’ that there had never been any MI6 involvement and ‘perfectly clear’ there was no basis in fact, he did not relate how exactly he had established this or why he was ‘perfectly clear’ of one position but only ‘fairly clear’ about another.

Despite his claims, he obviously hadn’t had time to organise and carry out a full inquiry, even though there were officers in MI5 who had been briefed about the plot, and who could have been interviewed. In fact, it appears that Cook – in the same way that Straw had done before him — went to the head of the agency concerned (in this case, MI6) and asked if it had been involved in terrorist funding and murder. Not surprisingly, the latter appears to have denied it.

After the Panorama programme was shown, Mark Urban offered his evidence to Robin Cook, who refused to take possession of it, informing him that the matter was closed. As this was an allegation of murder and terrorist funding, Cook should have discharged his legal duty and immediately referred the matter to the police to investigate.

Libya confirms plot

On Wednesday 25 November 1998, Libyan TV broadcast footage of the assassination attempt. It showed Gaddafi leaning out of his open-topped car to greet the crowds, then mingling with the crowd, then it showed an object flying through the air, Gaddafi looking down, then suddenly being surrounded by bodyguards, who hustled him away. The TV zoomed in on the face of a man in the crowd, and his face was circled in red. Libyan TV named the assailant as Abdullah Radwan, a partner of Abu Abdullah Sadiq, the leader of the Islamic Fighting Group. According to the report:

“Abdullah Radwan succeeded in reaching the front ranks and threw a grenade when the brother leader left the car.”

Questioner: Who entrusted you with the mission of entering the Jamahiriya [the People’s Republic of Libya]?
Al Shahh: Abu Abdullah Al Sadiq.
Q: Did he give money?
A: Yes
Q: How much money?
A: $20,000
Q: $20,000?
A: Yes
Q: What is the total amount of money you obtained from Abu Abdullah Al Sadiq?
A: Perhaps, $40,000 or $41,000
Q: $41,000?
A: Approximately, yes
Q: Where did the money you got come from?
A: I do not know. But there is a group in those countries
Q: What countries are these?
A: Britain

Redacted text on orders of MI5

Our recent enquiries with Swallow Tail, a former intelligence officer who cannot be named for fear of reprisals20, have confirmed that the man caught by the Libyans in the attack, was the agent Tunworth. This is further confirmation that an MI6 agent, whom we know was working to Watson in London, was involved in the plot. The officer also confirmed that was either killed during the attack that February or shortly after. This rather undermines the claims of ministers that they banned the story in order to protect national security, since the agent was clearly no longer at risk of reprisal and was not then providing intelligence to the British services.

Other than using the submission process to inform the PM about service abuses of power, David also wrote to ministers Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Robin Cook, John Prescott and the Attorney General on several occasions, asking them to investigate his disclosures of MI6’s funding of Al Qaeda. At no point did any minister hear his evidence. In June 1999, David sent ministers Secrets and Lies, a document he had prepared on his case to counter the misinformation put out by government. It provided details of the conspiracy but ministers still refused to call in the police or hold any kind of enquiry. And that would have been that, if it hadn’t been for the public-spirited former intelligence officer who obtained the CX document issued by MI6 in December 1995, and put it on the Internet. That officer said:
“I’ve just about had it up to here with the lies of ministers. It is difficult to imagine a more serious abuse of power than MI6 funding our terrorist enemies with the result that innocent people are murdered in cold-blood. If there had been a legal way of presenting that document to independent investigators, I would have used it. As there was not, I had to resort to the Internet. Thank God for modern technology.”

The MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy, Part 3

In February 2000, The Sunday Times provided corroboration that MI6 had conspired with an agent in a plan to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, when it reported that a leaked MI6 document, CX95/ 53452 had appeared on the website www.geocities.com/byanymeansnecessary2000. When interviewed about the document, the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook refused to confirm that it was genuine. David can though confirm that it is the document sent by MI6’s R/ME/C to Whitehall departments and the intelligence services in December 1995. It refuted Cook’s claims, which had caused many to believe that David had simply made the whole thing up:

“The tale about the MI6 plot to assassinate Gaddafi is pure fantasy.
“It is pure fantasy”
“I am clear these allegations have no basis in fact”
The MI6 report clearly demonstrated that an MI6 agent among the coup plotters was meeting his MI6 handler to discuss the assassination of Col Gaddafi ‘in which he was involved’:
“The coup plotters would launch a direct attack on Gaddafi and would either arrest him or kill him.”
“The military officer said that the plotters would have cars similar to those in Gaddafi’s security entourage with fake security number plates. They would infiltrate themselves into the entourage in order to kill or arrest Gaddafi.”

Remember, Tunworth had already outlined his plans and his request for finance to the resident MI6 officer in Tunis in summer 1995. David Watson, PT16/B, had then met Tunworth — in the full knowledge that the latter wanted to assassinate Gaddafi — to obtain details of the operation, which were published in the CX report. If this report had been a record of a meeting between a Libyan terrorist and an IRA member planning to assassinate Tony Blair, which had fallen into MI5 or police hands, it would have been accepted in a court of law as clear evidence of a conspiracy between the two to cause terrorism.

The MI6 intelligence report also confirmed that Sirte was the site of the attack in February or March 1996, information David had told Urban who had stood it up for the Panorama investigation into the plot. It also established that the group of coup plotters were at least looking for support from the British state. (As a CX report going out to ministers, it could not detail the illegal payments):

“The officer was disclosing this information in the hope that if the coup was successful, the new government could enlist HMG support.”

According to the report, Tunworth also admitted contacts between the plotters and Islamic extremists, described as ‘Libyan students’ and ‘Libyan veterans who served in Afghanistan’. As already discussed, veteran Libyan Islamic extremists who served in Afghanistan are considered by MI5 to be de facto members of Al Qaeda.

The CX report otherwise played down the agent’s contacts with Islamic extremists, presumably because the report went to ministers who would have been appalled at the prospect of Islamic terrorists toppling Gaddafi, given that the former posed a greater threat to British lives. As we now know from the sexed-up dossier, it is not unusual for inconvenient pieces of information to be left out of official reports.

David is adamant that, when Watson was briefing him, he told David that Tunworth was leading a ‘rag tag’ group of Islamic extremists. David also briefed Paul Slim, his boss at the time, with this information and provided it in his sworn statement to the police. He has not been charged with perjury. Other media reports already quoted have established that the Islamic Fighting Group were responsible. The Libyan TV broadcast also indicated that a leading member of the IFG might be Tunworth, as he led the attack in much the way that Tunworth outlined in the CX report.

The report also made it absolutely clear that the Permanent Under Secretary’s Department – Sir Humphrey Appleby’s equivalent in the Foreign Office — GCHQ, MI5; the Ministry of Defence; and MI6 stations in Tunis, Cairo and Washington knew of the assassination attempt at least two months in advance. They would therefore have had copies on file. Did none of them bother to brief Cook with this rather pertinent information before he went on the Breakfast with Frost programme on 9 August 1998? Were our Sir Humphreys and our George Smileys deliberately keeping ministers in the dark? Or did Cook know about Tunworth but think he could get away with branding the plot ‘pure fantasy’ in the belief that documents detailing the relationship between Tunworth and MI6 would never see the light of day?
We also have to ask ourselves what role the PM played in all this, as the figure ultimately responsible for our services. What did he know and when did he know it?

Julie Ann and the bullies in government

The government had always claimed it was not in the business of preventing legitimate discussion of the intelligence services. But on 6 March 2000, that all changed when Special Branch officers arrested Julie Ann Davies, a student at Kingston University, under the 1911 and 1989 OSAs, during a lecture at the college. She was held for several hours at Kingston Police station but was not charged. She was later released on police bail. The university confirmed that it had complied with a search warrant, giving police the right to access Davies’s computer at the university. Davies had recently visited David in France and had begun to rally support for him.

“During that meeting I became convinced that the man was genuine and so I felt the need to do something about his situation,” she said at the time.

The day after the CX document appeared on the Internet, Davies circulated an e-mail to fellow campaigners and journalists. In it, she stated:

“You have probably heard about the document on the web that appears to back up David Shayler’s allegations of an MI6 plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.”

It is also clear from the context of the questions that police asked her that Special Branch suspected her of putting the CX document on the Internet. Under questioning, Davies denied having anything to do with this. After keeping her on police bail for a number of months without charging her, Special Branch eventually dropped the investigation. As a result of the police action, she was forced to drop out of her university course. She is currently suing police for wrongful arrest. As a result of disclosure in this case, police have provided her with the ‘evidence’ which led to her arrest. It consists only of three anonymous letters claiming that she put the document on the Internet. As they are anonymous, they would not be considered admissible evidence in a court of law.

Mr Peter Scott, Kingston University vice chancellor, said:

“The university, as an institution committed to freedom of expression, would be particularly concerned if it turned out that a discredited piece of legislation like the OSA was being used to suppress legitimate journalistic investigation and the public’s right to know about alleged abuses by the security services.”

The arrest of Julie Ann Davies proved once again that ministers were rather more concerned with intimidating David’s supporters and protecting the intelligence services from proper scrutiny, including criminal investigation, than free speech, one of the cornerstones of democracy. It was also a clear example of bullying. The Sunday Times, which had published the original article about the report and quoted from the document, had not been investigated, nor had any of its journalists been arrested in connection with the matter.
This is also clear evidence that material from CX reports can be published without causing damage to national security, as the government did not prosecute the paper or its journalists under s5 of the 1989 OSA, where the Crown has to prove damage, for publishing and quoting from the report. But the bullying was set to continue.

The Observer taken to court

Having used the OSA to intimidate one of David’s supporters for trying to expose terrorism funded out by MI6, Blair’s government then turned its sights on the elements of the press who were bravely trying to expose the conspiracy. Comedian and journalist Mark Thomas had agreed to deliver his evidence about the conspiracy23 to the British Embassy by hand in November 1999. As Straw did not even bother to reply, David briefed Martin Bright of The Observer. In February 2000, he reported that Straw had done nothing to ensure that there was a criminal investigation into PT16/B’s activities.

The article also revealed for the first time in public that Tunworth was a senior member of Libyan intelligence, who had walked into the British Embassy in Tunis, and that reports quoting Moroccan and Egyptian intelligence sources had confirmed the assassination attempt, shortly after it took place in February 1996.

A Foreign Office spokesman changed the official position on the conspiracy, trying to play down Robin Cook’s claim that the tale about the MI6 plot to assassinate Gaddafi was ‘pure fantasy’:

“We have never denied knowledge of coup attempts against Col Gaddafi,” he told the paper. “We always described allegations of involvement as fantasy25. We have nothing to add or subtract”.

If the Foreign Office and Cook had been honest when the disclosure was first made, they would have said at the time:

“We are aware of a conspiracy to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi in early 1996. We are still making enquiries about any MI6 involvement.”

Tunworth was after all an MI6 agent who had by the time of the attack met David Watson, an MI6 officer, at least twice to discuss his plans. On that evidence alone, we can conclude that MI6 was involved. However, Tunworth could not have gone ahead with the plot without the backing of MI6, financial or otherwise. As we have seen, separate sources have confirmed payments were made to the IFG, the group Tunworth belonged to.

On 14 March 2000, both The Observer and The Guardian were taken to court by the authorities. Special Branch sought a court order to seize any notebooks and browse through The Observer’s computer for further evidence of breaches of the OSA on David’s part. It sought from The Guardian the original of a letter David had written, which was published in newspaper on the 17 February 2000. As Nick Cohen, The Observer’s columnist put it:

“No one would dream of telling a newspaper about official corruption, incompetence or crime, if they thought the police – or in this case, the secret police – might read every jotting and e-mail.”

A couple of days later, Detective Sergeant John Flynn, from the financial investigations unit of Special Branch, told The Guardian that there were ‘reasonable grounds’ for prosecuting Martin Bright and Roger Alton, the editor of The Observer, under s5 of the OSA.

A month later, judge Martin Stephens ruled that the papers had to hand over any material, even though he admitted that the letter to The Guardian contained nothing that had not already been printed. David said at the time:

“The government is adopting the tactics of a totalitarian state by attacking the press in this way. If they really believe I have documents that could damage national security, why don’t they come and talk to me about them, rather than intimidate journalists.”

Even the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and the Foreign Office minister Peter Hain were reported to be horrified at such an attack on press freedom. But we have to wonder why they chose to speak out at this point. Did Cook know that if the documents were handed over then David might be prosecuted for disclosing details of the MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy, allowing Cook’s ‘pure fantasy’ lies to be examined before a court?

On 19 July 2000, Mr Justice Igor Judge heard the case for Special Branch to access The Observer’s computer. He overturned the decision of the lower courts in his ringing defence of press freedom:

“The Gaddafi Plot is either true or it is false, and unless there are reasons of compelling national security, the public is entitled to know the facts, and as the eyes and ears of the public, journalists are entitled to investigate and report the facts, dispassionately and fairly, without prejudgement or selectivity […]

“If true, it is difficult to overestimate its enormity: a conspiracy to murder the head of another state, resulting not in his death, but in the deaths of innocent people who were not its intended targets.[…] Again, if true, the circumstances in which such a plan was conceived and developed, and the identity of those who were informed about and approved it, or turned a blind eye to it, and equally those who were deliberately kept in ignorance, raise critical public issues about the activities of the security services and those responsible for them”
In the middle of all this, a new development neatly pointed to the impotence of the services and the ineffectiveness of current legislation in protecting state secrets in the age of the Internet. Portuguese intelligence expert Frederico Duarte published the names of David Watson and Richard Bartlett, PT16/B and PT16 respectively in Tal & Qual, the Portuguese equivalent of Private Eye. As the names were also available on the Internet, they could be accessed from Britain. As they were now in the public domain, they could be repeated in the British media, although only the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom dared to actually publish the names of the two MI6 terrorists involved.

The delayed police investigation

In March 2000, John Wadham and I had hand-delivered a statement — which David had prepared and indicated he was prepared to swear to under oath — to the Metropolitan Police Special Branch at New Scotland Yard. The police then refused to investigate the plot claiming that conspiracy to murder did not amount to a crime in Britain. Again, this demonstrates what would have happened if David had violated the 1989 OSA s1 and approached the Met directly with his disclosures in 1997.

Finally in December 2000, two and a half years after David had made the original disclosure, he was finally given permission by the authorities to give evidence to the police. DS Gerry Mackinnon and Detective Supt Lewis Benjamin working for SO1 of the Met, interviewed him and prepared a sworn statement, which he signed in early 2001. SO1 then undertook the first ever police investigation into the activities of MI6. You don’t have to be a cynic to point out that by this time, MI6 had had plenty of time to destroy or tamper with the evidence. David and I have every confidence that the police in this case did their job thoroughly and professionally but by then, we believe, it was too late.

In February 2001, SO1 sent a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. Prosecution sources said the authorities had decided there was a prima facie case, meriting further investigation29. In all, the enquiries took nine months. In November 2001, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that the MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy was not ‘pure fantasy’:

“As you know, the Metropolitan Police Service undertook an assessment of the available material and submitted two reports to the Crown Prosecution Service, an interim report in February 2001 and a final report in September 2001. The police enquiry has been extremely thorough, examining all relevant material.”

This clearly confirms that the police have gathered evidence – ‘relevant material’ — about the MI6 conspiracy, which confirm there is ‘a basis in fact’ for David’s disclosures refuting Robin Cook assertion that: “The tale about the MI6 plot to assassinate Gaddafi is pure fantasy. [with] no basis in fact”. At the same time, neither the police nor the CPS sought to arrest David or bring charges for perjury or wasting police time, indicating that detailed sworn statement was honest, reliable and true. On these available facts, any reasonable observer can only conclude that Cook is lying and David telling the truth. In fact, we have challenged Cook to sign a sworn statement saying that the MI6/Al Qaeda plot was ‘pure fantasy [with] no basis in fact’.

The CPS did conclude that there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction. But it took them two months to come to this decision after the nine-month investigation. Even then, the CPS sought to misrepresent the findings of the enquiry:

“Final advice from the Crown Prosecution Service has now been received, saying that the material does not substantiate the allegation made by David Shayler.”

The work of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service is not to ‘substantiate […] allegations’ or otherwise. (Anyway, David made a number of allegations, not just one). Its job is to judge whether there is enough evidence to secure a conviction in front of a jury beyond any reasonable doubt. That is a very high standard of proof. The usual test of proof for Parliamentary or judicial enquiries is ‘the balance of probabilities’.

At the time, David commented:

“This is the first time that the police have investigated an allegation against MI6, partly because MI6 had a de facto immunity from investigation into allegations of crime on the part of the service under the Royal Prerogative. It demonstrates why MI6 was put on a legal footing in the 1994 Intelligence Services Act. The investigation was not of course ideal. The police were only looking to gather admissible evidence, which could be used to secure a conviction of the two MI6 officers who planned and carried out the plot, rather than trying to assess all relevant material, including intelligence.”

This whole process once again calls into question the oversight arrangements for the services and the ability of ministers and officials to discharge their legal duties. In the future, we will be seeking permission to have the recording — on which David’s sworn testimony was based — published so that the British people and, it is hoped, Parliament can see for themselves the truth of his words.

Further confirmation of the plot

That, again, might have been that but for a book published by two French journalists, shortly before David went to trial in October 2002. Guillaume Dasquié, publisher of Intelligence On-line, and Jean-Charles Brisard, a former adviser to French President Jacques Chirac who worked for the French intelligence services, published Forbidden Truth. The book confirms that the Islamic Fighting group was the Libyan Al Qaeda cell responsible for the attempt on Gaddafi’s life. The book added that the Islamic Fighting Group also included Anas al-Liby, a leading Al Qaeda member who is wanted for his involvement in the African embassy bombings and remains on the US government’s most wanted list with a reward of $25 million for his capture. Al-Liby was with Osama bin Laden in Sudan before the Al Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 199632. Dasquie said:

“Bin Laden wanted to settle in Libya in the early 1990s but was hindered by the government of Muammar Gaddafi. Enraged by Libya’s refusal, bin Laden organised attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Gaddafi.”.

This provides yet more convincing evidence that Tunworth was involved with Al Qaeda. At the very least, MI6 and MI5’s understanding of Al Qaeda was so limited that neither service realised the implications of Tunworth’s proposed coup in Libya: by assassinating Gaddafi the West would have lost a valuable ally in the battle with Al Qaeda and instead would have had to face the threat of an Al Qaeda in control of Libyan oil.

Given the timing of the MI6 payments– along with the close relationship between the IFG and bin Laden – it appears that British taxpayers’ money was used to fund Al Qaeda attacks in Libya. Ashur Shamis, a Libyan expert on Islamic extremism, also added support to David’s allegation:

“There was a rise in the activities of the Islamic Fighting Group from 1995 [around the time of the first payment],” he said, “but many in Libya would be shocked if MI6 was involved.”.

Issues raised by the MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy

Nearly all experts who work in counter-terrorism — as opposed to people on the “outside” — believe that assassinations, particularly in the case of heads of state only serve to destabilise a region. This was a view held by the US National Security Council until George W Bush became president. Although certain Third World leaders do not share our standards of democracy, they do provide a certain amount of stability to their country and region. Remove such a leader from power by assassination and you will only create a vacuum, which will lead to unrest and violence as factions compete for power.

Under international law, assassination operations are illegal. The only moral argument for assassinating any dictator or terrorist is that such action would lead to considerably fewer deaths, than leaving him in power to continue to support violence against the West. By 1996, Gaddafi had ceased to support the IRA or indeed any terrorism. There were, though, a few unconfirmed reports that he had provided funds to Palestinian resistance movements in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, territories illegally occupied by Israel and subject to UN resolutions. In this context, Gaddafi was funding organisations fighting for their own freedom, not terrorists.

In addition, MI6 had given its blessing to an individual who was leading a group of Islamic extremists with links to the Al Qaeda network. If Tunworth, the individual the Libyans caught in the act, had succeeded in assassinating Colonel Gaddafi, his supporters would in all probability have set up an Islamic Extremist state in North Africa, further destabilising a region already subject to violence from Islamic fundamentalists.

Once Al Qaeda had Libya, it would have been all too easy for the group to take control of neighbouring states like Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt, which already have their own internal problems with Al Qaeda. In control of a state like Libya or a region like North Africa, Al Qaeda would have had:

Ready access to Libyan funds, running into £billions.
Control of the Libyan oil industry, destabilising world oil prices.
The ability to launch many more attacks like September 11th, killing and maiming thousands of UK and US citizens.
A land border with Israel and therefore a greatly increased capacity to attack the state of Israel.
The means to destabilise world security on an enormous scale.
In fact, we only have to look at the current problems in Iraq to see what could have happened, had the MI6/Al Qaeda conspiracy successfully led to Gaddafi’s assassination. In the absence of Western military and security forces in a post-coup Libya, Al Qaeda would have had an even freer rein than it now has in post-war Iraq. At the very least, MI6 failed to realise the implications of Tunworth’s admitted association with Islamic Extremists or his intentions, a coup leading to an Al Qaeda state in Libya. That in itself would be of enormous concern, for which MI6 deserves to roundly be censured. But, the truth is, the agent duped MI6 officers into funding that potential Al Qaeda takeover. David explains:

“This was an act of terrorism, in which Britain became a state sponsor of Islamic extremism. To put this in context, the Provisional IRA tries to avoid harming civilians on the basis that it produces bad publicity (although inevitably civilians are maimed and murdered when bombs go off on our streets). Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda have no such restraint. MI6 consciously supported terrorists who pose a greater threat to the national security of the UK than the Provisional IRA ever did.

“Although my boss, Paul Slim did not seem to want to know, I made it clear to him that it was his responsibility to take it up the management chain. This whole operation was clearly a violation of the rule of law that my recruiter had told me the services must observe.

“I could also clearly see that the relationship between Tunworth and MI6 was flawed. MI5 had no security record of Tunworth and MI6 had only a couple of traces or brief mentions. Yet less than six months later, after a handful of meetings, MI6 had given him £100,000 of taxpayers’ money to assassinate a foreign head of state. There was no way that MI6 could in that time have established a close enough relationship with him to make any realistic assessment of his character and reliability – he really could have been anybody.”

If this sort of MI6 activity only went on abroad and did not affect British citizens, it might be less frightening for us. However, MI6 routinely operates in the UK. In addition to IOPs35, UKG (now PT16B/OPS) ran agents in the UK and UKZ carries out surveillance.

If our elected representatives are not allowed to access MI6 documents about the conspiracy then perhaps they should try using the US Freedom of Information Act to obtain final confirmation of MI6 funding Tunworth and the IFG and Al Qaeda.

Conclusions

As David went on the record precisely because of the MI6 funding of Al Qaeda, it is worth looking at what he would have said in his defence in court, had he been allowed one:

Cover-up: There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook was ‘economical with the truth’. His statement protected murderers in the intelligence services and ensured that David was thrown in prison with a view to extradition. The media has been slow to put this to Cook and the head of Britain’s intelligence services, Prime Minister Tony Blair. Once the MI6 document appeared on the Internet and the police recovered relevant material, it must have been clear to the Prime Minister that his Foreign Secretary had not told the whole truth to the British people. In that situation, he had a simple choice under the ministerial code: either correct the statement of his minister or enter into the. This is a cover up of monumental proportions. Its implications for our democracy and the rule of law are enormous.

Justice: Although the deaths of a few Libyans may not carry as much weight with newspaper editors as the deaths of British citizens, they are still somebody’s sons and daughters. They are human beings and not ‘collateral damage’ as some commentators have suggested. British ministers have a duty to protect life.

Law and order: Any attempt to assassinate a foreign head of state is an act of terrorism, banned by international law under the Protection of Privileged Persons Act 1869. How can we condemn Libya for bombing flight PA 103 over Lockerbie or assassinating WPC Yvonne Fletcher, if we resort to the same terrible tactics?

Terrorism: Removing Colonel Gaddafi would have led to a more extreme despot taking over in Libya, which would in all probability have led to attacks on British, US, European and Israeli citizens. Al Qaeda members, enemies of the West then and now, carried out the attempted coup. By this time, MI6 knew that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993. At the same time, MI5 had set up a section, G9C, in 1995, specifically to investigate Islamic extremist groups, particularly Al Qaeda. It was therefore the height of negligence (some might say stupidity) for MI6 to give up to £100,000 of taxpayers’ money to the leader of such a group.

Failure of accountability and oversight: Under the 1994 Intelligence Services Act, MI6 could have submitted the plot to the Foreign Secretary for permission. With that permission, they would have been immune from prosecution. By not submitting, MI6 officers were deciding British foreign policy towards Libya, not the democratically accountable Foreign Secretary. After David’s return to the UK, we approached the police to investigate the plot. They initially refused to take possession of David’s evidence, allowing those involved in the meantime to perhaps doctor the evidence.

Lack of transparency: If we can only maintain our reputation for democracy through lying, cheating and obsessive secrecy then I suggest we are not really a liberal democracy at all. If you want to live in the sort of country in which the intelligence services are allowed to work in absolute secrecy and literally get away with murder, I suggest you go and live in Iran.
Corruption: If you want to live in a functioning democracy, you have a moral and democratic duty to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld and that they apply equally to every citizen of that country. When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary give MI6 officers a de facto immunity by refusing to take evidence of their conspiring to murder, they send a very clear message to MI6. And that message is: “You are above the law. You can get away with it now and can get away with it in the future. In fact, you enjoy the same rights as KGB officers in the former Soviet Union”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlaMUq6MKU_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

'A confidential intelligence email obtained by True Pundit provides proof that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created a secret and illegal alliance between the United States and a faction of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization to ultimately assassinate Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and distribute weapons to Middle Eastern terror groups, intelligence sources confirm.

The March 2011 email, sent to Clinton’s private email server from intelligence consultant and long-time confidant Sidney Blumenthal, provides devastating overt and covert revelations of how the United States, under Clinton’s Dept. of State, secretly violated a number of domestic and international laws by colluding with foreign governments and the terrorist organization and its leaders to conduct rogue foreign policy. The information in the email, coupled with corroboration and background from intelligence sources, highlight egregious political and legally questionable abuses including:

*Clinton directly aligned and allied with Al-Qaeda and its fanatics to overthrow, assassinate Gaddafi.

*Clinton directly armed and commissioned known terrorists and sworn foes with weapons in Libya, a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which called for a complete arms embargo on Libya.

*Clinton and Obama together financed Al-Qaeda to overthrow Libyan government and stockpile weapons, including tanks and heavy artillery, which were ultimately shipped from Libya to terror factions in Syria and elsewhere.

*According to intelligence sources, many of the weapons supplied to Al-Qaeda factions were believed to have be used against Americans in the Sept. 11 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.

But the United States didn’t act alone. Using the public guise of humanitarian intervention in Libya to prevent a massacre by the Gaddafi regime, Britain, France and Egypt acted with the U.S. to train and arm Al-Qaeda to assassinate Gaddafi and stockpile weapons to eventually ship to Syrian. Also, the United Nations and several key NATO countries, including the U.S., also assisted this rebel regime with air strikes. Gaddafi was eventually assassinated on Oct. 20, 2011 at the hands of the Libyan rebels, less than six months after Blumenthal’s email.

Blumenthal’s detailed intelligence briefing highlights a list of weapons commissioned by the U.S. the Libyan “rebels” had stockpiled in Benghazi for the plot against Gaddafi.

These knowledgeable sources add that the insurgents have the following weapons stockpiled in Benghazi:

Blumental likewise details that French, British and Egyptian Special Forces troops were training the rebels inside of western Egypt and in the western suburbs of Benghazi. He likewise acknowledges that the foreign “troops are overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels,” a direct violation of international law and UN resolutions.......'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

For Saif al-Islam it is not about regaining power in full light, at least for the time being, but to be able to manoeuvre the political reconfiguration of the country in the shadows (AFP)
Mathieu Galtier
Friday 11 November 2016 12:26 UTC
Last update: Friday 11 November 2016 19:12 UTC

TRIPOLI - The situation in Libya is so chaotic that the “libyanisation” neologism is currently imposing itself. It has become a fatal combination of balkanisation – the division of a state into autonomous districts – and somalisation – the failing of a government in favour of militia groups.

Currently, the country has three governments. During the last five years, Libya has seen two general elections, an aborted coup d’etat, the arrival of the Islamic State group (IS) and low-intensity ethnic conflicts. The decaying situation is such that more and more Libyans are calling for a return of the Jamahiriya (“state of the masses”), implemented by Muammar Gaddafi.

READ: Will the world let Libya's Ganfouda become the next Srebrenica?

“We want to liberate the Jamahiriya, which was the victim of a coup d’etat led by NATO”, Franck Pucciarelli told the Middle East Eye. The Frenchman, who lives in Tunisia, is the spokesman for a group of partisans of the Libyan and international revolutionary groups, who act as the transmission belt for the Gaddafi ideology. He explained that members have been working since 2012 from outside the country.

The organisation reportedly has some 20,000 members in Libya and 15,000 to 20,000 exiled former soldiers are prepared to return. “We are able to organise a popular uprising and if Libya falls into chaos, it is thanks to our actions,” states the spokesman.

Ahmed, a former director at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs today living in Tunisia, is more measured. “We have made the most of the instability to return, but are not responsible for anything, he told MEE. The Libyan people and international community have simply realised that Libya can only be governed under the Jamahiriya”.

The three types of Gaddafi loyalists

The two men do, however, agree on the political organisation of the country after regaining power. The idea is to hold a referendum – or rather a plebiscite – on the return of the Jamahiriya with the presence of the international community to supervise the vote. It would be a relatively modernised state of the masses, with a senate representing the tribes, a lower house and above all a constitution –which were lacking under Mouammar Gaddafi.

It is a scenario which causes Rachid Kechana, director of the North African Study Centre on Libya, to smile. He accepts that there is a sustainable renewal of the green ideology (the colour of the Jamahiriya). “The return to grace of the former regime can above all be understood by the failure of the post-revolutionary transition. And the Gaddafi ideologies are based on this failure to return to the forefront of the political scene, and not a genuine popular acceptance. The Gaddafi loyalists will never return to power, but they will have some importance, through strategic alliances in the future Libya."

A young Libyan brandishes a portrait of Haftar in Benghazi in October 2015 (AFP)
Mattia Toaldo, a specialist on Libya at the European Council on international relations, has identified three types of Gaddafi loyalists: the supporters of Saif el-Islam, the favourite son of Gaddafi, detained since 2011 in the city of Zentan in the west of the country; the supporters of General Khalifa Haftar, in the east of the country; and the orthodox supporters of the Jamahiriya. Franck Pucciarelli and Ahmed represent the last category, which is the most extreme.

Those who joined with Haftar benefited from the amnesty law passed by the Tobruk parliament for perpetrators of crimes during the uprising in 2011. A text aims to bring back those in exile, which number between 1.5m and 3m, including a majority of Gaddafi loyalists who sought refuge in Tunisia and Egypt.

The clan of Saif al-Islam is probably the best organised and brings together a portion of orthodox supporters. Although sentenced to death on 28 July 2015 in absentia in Tripoli, al-Islam is still alive in Zentan. Officially a prisoner of the local militia, he enjoys very lax conditions of detention and is reportedly free to travel around the city. He communicates a lot, usually using the Viber smartphone app.

Why Saïf al-Islam is a better deal than his brother, Saadi

At one point Saif al-Islam’s future was quite bleak. Now, his position has improved thanks to western states. Emails from Hillary Clinton revealed by WikiLeaks, as well as the parliamentary report by the UK Conservative MP Crispin Blunt published in September, painted the picture of a moderate potentially ready to serve as a democratic transition following in the path of his father.

“The commitment of Saif Gaddafi may have allowed Lord Hague [UK foreign secretary from 2010 to 2014] to support Mahmoud Jibril and Abdul Jalil in the implementation of reforms in Libya without incurring political, military or human costs for intervention and a change in the regime, but we will never be sure,” said the UK report. “Such possibilities, however, should have been seriously considered at the time.”

Since then, Gaddafi loyalists have promoted the moderate and educated profile of Saif el-Islam, who is a graduate of the London School of Economics. He is a better deal than his brother, Saadi, who has been detained in Tripoli and who has turned to religion. His brothers Hannibal and Mohamed, his sister Aisha and mother Safia, have remained silent in Oman since October 2012, after calling for a violent counter-revolution from Algeria in the months immediately following the death of Muammar Gaddafi.

For Saif al-Islam it is not about regaining power in view of everyone, at least for the time being, but to be able to manœuvre the political reconfiguration of the country in the shadows. Many tribes in the west of the country fear the continued advances of Haftar, who is supported by tribes in the east, beginning with the inhabitants of Zentan, although officially allied to the marshal.

Gaddafi loyalists invited for the first time by the UN

However, today the province of Tripolitania is divided between an Islamist group and a Government of National Accord (GNA),which is very weak despite its recognition by the international community.

Saif al-Islam could be the face of unity against Cyrenaica – an eastern region of Libya, which is undergoing a vast resurgence thanks to the recent victories of Haftar. On the ground, the positive signs are stacking up for the son of the former leader.

In September 2015, the self-proclaimed Supreme Council of the Libyan Tribes also chose Saif al-Islam as the legitimate representative of the country. This council essentially brings together those tribes who remained faithful to Gaddafi and has no institutional power - but the symbolism is strong.

Since spring, Ali Kana, former head of the armed forces in the south of the country under Gaddafi, has worked for the constitution of an army in Fezzan, the region of Libya, with the total number of recruits difficult to gauge at present. Kana has already announced that the group will neither be affiliated with Tripoli or Tobruk, but only allied to a power which recognises the legitimacy of the Jamahiriya.

The most revolutionary militia in Tripoli have understood the potential danger in allowing the rampant nostalgia of the Gadhafi period develop (AFP)
In August, for the very first time, the UN invited historic Gaddafi loyalists, including a former president of the People’s Congress (the equivalent of a legislative assembly under the Jamahiriya) to speak in discussions concerning a political and economic solution to the crisis.

'The country has become a joke'

The people are also beginning to draw comparisons between the present and past – and prefer the past. In the Jamhouriya Bank in Tripoli, Mahmoud Abdelaziz, who is around 40, has been stood in line for two hours to withdraw the authorised limit of 500 dinars (327 euros), and has done so for several days every week.

Currency reserves have gone from $107.6bn dollars in 2013, to $43bn at the end of 2016. On the black market, a dollar is worth 5.25 dinars.

“The country has become a joke. There is civil war everywhere, there is no money and the best possible career is to sign up to a militia group,” Abdelaziz told MEE. He recognised, however, that the revolution did bring about the freedom to criticise, which was not possible under Gaddafi.

But he does believe that it was better before as “security is better than freedom”.

The most revolutionary militia in Tripoli has understood the potential danger of such a rampant nostalgia to develop.

In June, they assassinated 12 loyalists in Tripoli from the Jamahiriya who had just completed their prison sentences for crimes committed in 2011.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

yes foreign agent snipers shot peaceful protesters with the conspirators in their midst whipped them up to attack police stns
the police ran rather than confront & hurt angry mob, mob got police weapons then marched on military baracks & there did same.

When two Libyan men hijacked Afriqiyah Airways Flight 209 last December from Sabha to Tripoli and diverted it to Malta, they interrupted the shooting of the film Entebbe, which was taking place at Malta International Airport.

The drama depicts the infamous seizure of an Air France flight to the Ugandan town of Entebbe by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in 1976, during an era when hijackings were weekly events: that Flight 209 landed close to the film set highlighted how such hijackings have become virtually obsolete as a militant tactic since the early 2000s.

The hijackers wanted the release of Hannibal Gaddafi, the former dictator’s playboy son. But why was he the subject of a political hijacking?
The two hijackers, Suhah Mussa and Ahmed Ali, were supporters of the former Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, who was killed in 2011.

From the plane they waved the green flag of the Jamahiriya, the political system installed and led by Gaddafi. They also demanded asylum in Europe and permission to found a pro-Gaddafi party.

But above all, the hijackers wanted the release of Hannibal Gaddafi, the former ruler’s playboy son, who is currently detained in Lebanon and most notable in the past for attracting the wrong sort of headlines.

In 2001 he brawled with police officers in Rome. In 2004 he made headlines in Paris for driving his Porsche at 90 miles an hour on the wrong side of the Champs-Elysées. In 2005 he was arrested for allegedly beating up his pregnant girlfriend and breaking furniture at two Paris hotels. And in 2008 he was arrested and indicted by Swiss authorities after reportedly beating two domestic servants in a luxury hotel in Geneva.

A freed passenger leaves Flight 209 last December in Malta (Reuters)
The hijacking ended without bloodshed. All 118 passengers and crew members were released after a few hours and the hijackers surrendered to the Maltese authorities. Their guns and grenades, with which they had threatened to blow up the plane, turned out to be replicas.

Hannibal Gaddafi is the dictator’s fifth son. So why was he the subject of a political hijacking?

The case of the missing imam

The events in Malta were but the latest chapter in a four-decade feud between the Gaddafi clan and pro-Shia groups in Lebanon.

It begins with the case of the “vanished imam”. During the 1970s, Musa Sadr was the spiritual leader of the Shias in Lebanon, then the most politically and economically marginalised group in society.

'It's a blessing to have this diversity of sects in Lebanon. But when there is strife among them, sectarianism is the worst thing for a country'

- Musa Sadr, imam
A charismatic scholar and talented political organiser, Sadr inspired the oppressed Shia farmers in south Lebanon to fight for their rights. A secularist, the Shia cleric was considered a moderate, who could come to an understanding with leaders of the country’s other religious and ethnic groups amid years of conflict. "It's a blessing to have this diversity of sects in Lebanon," Sadr used to say. "But when there is strife among them, sectarianism is the worst thing for a country."

READ: How the West lost Libya

In August 1978, Sadr disappeared during a visit to Libya, where he was invited to a meeting with Gaddafi, the country’s leader.

The details of his death and that of his two companions are unclear – but it is assumed that they were carried out on the orders of the Libyan ruler. After the fall of Gaddafi, Ahmad Ramadan, his right-hand man, confirmed as much in an interview.

Sadr’s disappearance led to an outcry in the Shiite world, whose nascent political awakening was just about to crystalise into the Iranian Revolution. It resulted in several kidnappings and bombings against Libyan diplomatic targets in Beirut as well as hijackings during the early 1980s by Amal, a political movement representing the Lebanese Shias, which Sadr co-founded in 1974.

In December 1981, three hijackers took over a Libyan Arab Airlines Boeing 727 from Zurich to Tripoli. They eventually surrendered in Beirut. The hijackers’ demands were that they could report the case of the "vanished Imam" personally to the Ayatollah Khomeini and that the Iranian government ask Libya to investigate Sadr’s disappearance.

The Amal militia, co-founded by imam Musa Sar, battle the PLO in May 1985 in Beirut (AFP)
Tehran rejected the idea, clearly prioritising its relations with Tripoli over its religious affinities to fellow Shias in Lebanon. “Considering its isolation, Tehran could have ill afforded to break with Tripoli as well,” Swiss diplomats concluded at the time.

The Islamic republic might also have had another reason to reject the militants' demands. According to fresh research by Pulitzer Prize winner Kai Bird and Columbia University professor Andrew Scott Cooper, Ayatollah Khomeini or Imam Mohammed Beheshti, a close companion of the revolutionary leader, probably arranged Sadr’s assassination with Gaddafi.

READ: Why the Gaddafi loyalists are back

For many years, Sadr's followers could do nothing else than commemorate their idol in speeches, anniversaries and the like. With the fall of Gaddafi's regime in 2011, many hoped that the truth would be uncovered, even that the imam might be found alive in a Libyan prison. But the mystery continued.

Hannibal the hostage?

When the NATO-supported rebels took power in Libya in 2011, Hannibal Gaddafi fled first to Algeria, then found refuge as a “political refugee” in Oman before finally arriving in Syria.

According to Lebanese intelligence sources, it was from there that, in December 2015, he was lured to Lebanon in an elaborate scheme and kidnapped by associates of Amal, who apparently tortured him to give them information on the fate of the vanished imam.

Problem: Hannibal Gaddafi was only three at the time of Sadr’s death in 1978. This explains why Hannibal eventually appeared on Beirut-based TV station Al Jadeed, urgently pleading in a video for anyone who might be aware of Sadr’s fate to come forward.

Hannibal Gaddafi is currently being detained in Lebanon (AFP)
In mid-December 2015, Hannibal was released (or freed, depending on the source) in Balbeek in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. Since then, he has been kept in custody in Beirut by the Lebanese authorities as part of an investigation into Sadr’s fate as well as being the subject of a lawsuit by the imam’s family.

There is an irony that in 2016 Gaddafi loyalists chose a hijacking – the tactic used by Musa Sadr’s followers against the Libyan regime – to try and free Hannibal Gaddafi. But it has not been the only attempt to set Gaddafi free.

A “European humanitarian delegation” travelled to Lebanon in late November to protest against the detention of Gaddafi, led by Prince Sixtus Henry of Bourbon-Parma. There was also an ostentatious press conference in Geneva on 15 December. It is alleged by Ian Hamel, a French journalist, that both events were most probably paid for by Hannibal’s sister Ayesha Gaddafi, who now has political asylum in Oman.

During a court session on 13 January, Hannibal said his father was innocent of Sadr’s assassination and promised to contact “key figures who were in power in Libya at the time to end the case”, on condition of his immediate release, according to the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar. "I am ready to cooperate in the case," Hannibal reportedly promised.

Moussa Koussa, former Libyan intelligence chief, has been implicated in the death of Musa Sadr (AFP)
In a dramatic turn of events, he also accused Abdel-Salam Jalloud, the Libyan prime mnister from 1972 to 1977, of plotting the abduction and murder of Sadr and implicated Moussa Koussa, former Libyan foreign minister and intelligence chief. Both are still alive: they have yet to respond to his claims.

Jalloud is the last surviving leader of Libya’s 1969 revolution and was the second most powerful member of the regiome for two decades before falling out with Gaddafi. Koussa, like Jalloud, defected during the 2011 uprising.

Hannibal Gaddafi’s allegations may be an act of revenge.

Green resurgence in Libya

Attempts to free Hannibal come at a time when the green flag of the Jamahiriya, waved from that hijacked plane in Malta, has been seen more frequently on the ground in Libya, a testament to the resurgence of the Gaddafi ideology in the face of the country's dramatic political and economic collapse.

After the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, forces loyal to the dictator were excluded from the political process. The new rulers quickly enacted laws, making public support for his beliefs a punishable offense. Thousands of suspected and actual sympathisers were arrested: many of them were tortured, according to Amnesty International.

But since 2015, larger pro-Gaddafi protests have taken place, especially in Sabha in southwestern Libya, from where Flight 209 departed. Gaddafi followers are increasingly joining the Libyan National Army, led by General Khalifa Haftar, who has considerable sway in eastern Libya.

Saif Gaddafi is regarded by supporters of his father as the successor to his legacy (AFP)
Around Sirte, the home town of their idol, Gaddafi loyalists even fought with independent units against Islamic State.

Franck Pucciarelli, a spokesman for a pro-Gaddafi group based in Tunisia, recently asserted: “We have the capacities to organise a popular uprising and if chaos is installed in Libya, this will be the result of our actions."

While Hannibal seems ill-suited for carrying on the Gaddafi legacy, considering his personality and former lifestyle, his older brother Saif al-Islam is seen as a likely leader of this green resistance, which could be reinforced by a substantial number of returning Libyan refugees, especially from Tunisia and Egypt.

READ: How Saif al-Islam became a bargaining chip

The statesman-like Saif inspired the resistance against the rebels during the 2011 civil war and can move freely around the north-western city of Zintan.

Last summer, his lawyer Marcel Ceccaldi announced that Gaddafi's favourite son wanted to “contribute to the political unification of Libya” and “fight against terrorism”.

The supporters of the Jamahiriya may have to be reckoned with in 2017 - but, for the time being at least, Hannibal Gaddafi stays in detention.

'....In 2011, the late Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was in the crosshairs of the imperialists’ gunsights. An April 2, 2011 e-mail to Clinton explains frankly and bluntly why he was targeted. “[Libya’s 143 tons of gold] was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc…”

The e-mail goes on to explain: “French intelligence officers discovered this plan [for a pan-African currency] shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” The explanation doesn’t stop there: “According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues: a) A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production; b) Increase French influence in North Africa, c) Improve his internal political situation in France, d) Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, e) Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”

African countries were expected to get on board the train to Libyan regime change without resisting or even questioning the reasons for the journey. It is therefore not surprising that the U.S. State Department became not only frustrated, but irritated with the African countries that hinted at a willingness to stray from the customary script neo-colonies are expected to follow.

An internal memo forwarded to Clinton dated March 22, 2011 states: “There is a definite split on the [African] continent with more nations lining up behind the March 20th [African Union] statement and questioning our military mission -- or at least seeking greater clarity -- than those who are fully articulating support.” Another memo in the same e-mail chain from Johnnie Carson (former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs) relates his conversation with African Union official Ramtane Lamamra who affirmed the African Union’s reluctance to rely on armed force in Libya: “…[Lamamra] noted that the AU is particularly focused on …the need to intensify efforts to resolve the crisis and respond to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people, and notes the joint AU and UN role in facilitating dialogue that leads to political reforms necessary for a peaceful, sustainable solution.”

“Africans knew the imperialist destabilization of Libya would have devastating consequences for the continent.”

Carson reported that Lamamra denied any suggestions that the African Union was making special efforts to preserve the Qaddafi government, and that what the organization wanted instead was a democratic process that would allow the Libyan people to freely and fairly choose their own leaders. Notwithstanding the objective reasonableness of that position, it was clearly in conflict with the U.S. position that “Qaddafi must go.” Carson said: “I told Lamamra the absence of any AU condemnation of Qaddafi was screamingly noticeable.”

Africans knew the imperialist destabilization of Libya would have devastating consequences for the continent. By contrast, the State Department’s hacks, bureaucrats and high-ranking officials are on a mission to manipulate and exploit at whatever cost, and they act with indifference to the pain and turmoil of the people who suffer the consequences of imperialist schemes and operations. Consider the arrogance and cynicism of a February 27, 2011 State Department memo that presumes regime change is inevitable, and offers suggestions for how to handle the aftermath. With respect to the “Italian role” it says: “Should be kept relatively low-profile by virtue of Italy’s colonization of Libya and enduring sensitivities stemming from that. Will be tough to balance Italy’s desire to protect its sizeable commercial interests against the need to play a quiet, less visible role.”

(Ironically, the author of the memo was not a personal acquaintance of Clinton’s and in questioning whether he was still on the State Department payroll, she commented: “I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State.”)......'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Fighters say government operated 'open door' policy allowing them to join rebels, as authorities investigate background of Manchester bomber
A mural in Tripoli paying tribute to fighters from Manchester who joined the 17 February Martyrs' Brigade during Libya's revolution against Gaddafi (AFP)
Amandla Thomas-Johnson
Simon Hooper
Thursday 25 May 2017 07:20 UTC

The British government operated an "open door" policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens to join the 2011 uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi even though some had been subject to counter-terrorism control orders, Middle East Eye can reveal.

Several former rebel fighters now back in the UK told MEE that they had been able to travel to Libya with "no questions asked" as authorities continued to investigate the background of a British-Libyan suicide bomber who killed 22 people in Monday's attack in Manchester.

Salman Abedi, 22, the British-born son of exiled dissidents who returned to Libya as the revolution against Gaddafi gathered momentum, is also understood to have spent time in the North African country in 2011 and to have returned there on several subsequent occasions.

British police have said they believe the bomber, who returned to Manchester just a few days before the attack, was part of a network and have arrested six people including Abedi's older brother since Monday.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said that Abedi was known to security services, while a local community worker told the BBC that several people had reported him to the police via an anti-terrorism hotline.

On Wednesday, authorities in Tripoli said that Abedi's younger brother and father, who had resettled in Libya after the revolution, had also been arrested on suspicion of links to the Islamic State (IS) group, which claimed responsibility for Monday's attack.

Sources spoken to by MEE suggest that the government facilitated the travel of Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents and citizens keen to fight against Gaddafi including some who it deemed to pose a potential security threat.

'No questions asked'

One British citizen with a Libyan background who was placed on a control order – effectively house arrest – because of fears that he would join militant groups in Iraq said he was "shocked" that he was able to travel to Libya in 2011 shortly after his control order was lifted.

"I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said the source, who wished to remain anonymous.

He said he had met several other British-Libyans in London who also had control orders lifted in 2011 as the war against Gaddafi intensified, with the UK, France and the US carrying out air strikes and deploying special forces soldiers in support of the rebels.

"They didn't have passports, they were looking for fakes or a way to smuggle themselves across," said the source.

But within days of their control orders being lifted, British authorities returned their passports, he said.

"These were old school LIFG guys, they [the British authorities] knew what they were doing," he said, referring to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi Islamist militant group formed in 1990 by Libyan veterans of the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The British government listed the LIFG as a proscribed terrorist organisation in 2005, describing it as seeking to establish a "hard-line Islamic state" and "part of the wider Islamist extremist movement inspired by al-Qaeda". Former members of the LIFG deny that the group had any links with al-Qaeda and say it was committed only to removing Gaddafi from power.

Belal Younis, another British citizen who went to Libya, described how he was stopped under 'Schedule 7' counter-terrorism powers on his return to the UK after a visit to the country in early 2011. Schedule 7 allows police and immigration officials to detain and question any person passing through border controls at ports and airports to determine whether they are involved in terrorism.

He said he was subsequently asked by an intelligence officer from MI5, the UK's domestic security agency: "Are you willing to go into battle?"

"While I took time to find an answer he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi," he told MEE.

Travel 'sorted' by MI5

As he was travelling back to Libya in May 2011 he was approached by two counter-terrorism police officers in the departure lounge who told him that if he was going to fight he would be committing a crime.

But after providing them with the name and phone number of the MI5 officer he had spoken to previously, and following a quick phone call to him, he was waved through.

As he waited to board the plane, he said the same MI5 officer called him to tell him that he had "sorted it out".

"The government didn't put any obstacles in the way of people going to Libya," he told MEE.

"The vast majority of UK guys were in their late twenties. There were some 18 and 19. The majority who went from here were from Manchester."

But he said he thought it was unlikely that Abedi, who would only have been 16 at the time, would have been recruited as a fighter.

"The guys I was fighting with would never put a 16-year-old boy anywhere near the frontline."

Younis said he did not think that the policy of allowing British-Libyans to fight againt Gaddafi had been a contributing factor in Monday's attack, pointing out that IS was not present in the country at the time - and said he had no regrets about his decision to fight.

"What inspired me to go to Libya was the liberty of civilians. There's no way that that can morph into killing children," he said.

Another British citizen with experience of fighting in both Libya and in Syria with rebel groups also told MEE that he had been able to travel to and from the UK without disruption.

"No questions were asked," he said.

The majority of the fighters flew to Tunisia and then crossed the border into Libya, while others travelled via Malta, he said.

"The whole Libyan diaspora were out there fighting alongside the rebel groups," he added.

Libyan rebel fighters pictured in the oil port of Brega in March 2011 (AFP)

One British-Libyan man from Manchester who also wished to remain anonymous told MEE that he had travelled frequently to Libya during the 2011 revolution to undertake humanitarian aid work.

"I never got prevented from going to Libya or stopped when I tried to come back," he said.

The man said that he had come across Salman Abedi at their local mosque in the Didsbury neighbourhood but that he had "kept himself to himself" and was not an active member of the community.

His family, who were originally from Tripoli, had returned to Libya, he said.

"I guess if your family is away from you that sense of belonging dissipates. For us Libyans in Manchester - they're trying to imply we knew. He was just an individual and he's nothing to do with us."

Another person who knew Abedi described him as a "hot head" with a reputation for involvement in petty crime.

"Yesterday they're drug dealers, today they're Muslims," he said, adding that he believed Abedi had also been friends with Anil Khalil Raoufi, an IS recruiter from Didsbury who was killed in Syria in 2014.

'Elite SAS training'

One of the British-Libyans spoken to by MEE described how he had carried out "PR work" for the rebels in the months before Gaddafi was overthrown and eventually killed in October 2011.

He said he was employed to edit videos showing Libyan rebels being trained by former British SAS and Irish special forces mercenaries in Benghazi, the eastern city from where the uprising against Gaddafi was launched.

"They weren't cheap videos with Arabic nasheeds [songs], they were slick, professional glossy films which we were showing Qataris and Emiratis to support troops who were getting elite SAS training."

He was also tasked by rebel commanders with training young Libyans to use cameras so that they could sell packages to international media.

A volunteer fighter from Manchester pictured in Ajdabiya in eastern Libya in April 2011 (AFP)

On one assignment at a rebel base camp in a Misrata school, he came across a group of about eight young British-Libyans. After joking about their northern accents he found out that they had never been to Libya before.

"They looked about 17 or 18, maybe one was 20 at most. They had proper Manchester accents," he said. "They were there living and fighting and doing the whole nine yards."

Many Libyan exiles in the UK with links to the LIFG were placed on control orders and subjected to surveillance and monitoring following the rapprochement between the British and Libyan governments sealed by the so-called "Deal in the Desert" between then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Gaddafi in 2004.

According to documents retrieved from the ransacked offices of the Libyan intelligence agency following Gaddafi's fall from power in 2011, British security services cracked down on Libyan dissidents in the UK as part of the deal, as well as assisting in the rendition of two senior LIFG leaders, Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi, to Tripoli where they allege they were tortured.

Belhaj later returned to Libya and was a leading figure in the uprising against Gaddafi, while another former Libyan exile subjected to a control order in the UK was later tasked with providing security for visiting dignitaries including British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, MEE understands.
'When the revolution started, things changed'

Ziad Hashem, an LIFG member granted asylum in the UK, said in 2015 that he had been imprisoned for 18 months without charge and then restricted to his home for a further three years based on information he believed had been supplied by Libyan intelligence.

But he said: "When the revolution started, things changed in Britain. Their way of speaking to me and treating me was different. They offered to give me benefits, even indefinite leave to remain or citizenship."

Control orders were introduced as part of counter-terrorism legislation drafted in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings.

They allowed authorities to restrict the activities of people suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities by requiring them to remain at a registered address for up to 16 hours a day, subjecting them to electronic tagging, limiting their access to telephone and internet communications, and banning them from meeting or communicating with other people deemed to be of concern.

At least 50 people were subjected to the measure with at least 12 Libyan exiles among them.

Control orders were replaced with Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), which allow authorities to impose many of the same restrictions while limiting their term to two years, in 2011.

The Home Office told MEE it did not comment on individual cases. It said that TPIMs were a robust and effective means for dealing with terrorism suspects who could not be prosecuted or deported.

Not that we didn't know already, but having it stated in the Hildabeast's emails should be usefull (for newspaper comments columns etc)._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

In George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel 1984, the protagonist Winston Smith’s job was to delve into The Times of London archive and rewrite stories that could cause trouble for the totalitarian government ruling Britain. For instance, if the government made a prediction of wheat or automobile production in their five-year plan and that prediction did not come true, Winston would go into the archives and “correct” the numbers in the article on record.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In writing a response the other day to a critic of my recently published book on Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat, I was researching how the U.S. corporate media covered a 2016 British parliamentary report on Libya that showed how then Secretary of State Clinton and other Western leaders lied about an impending genocide in Libya to justify their 2011 attack on that country.

Using a combination of different keywords, I searched The Washington Post archives but came up with no story on the parliamentary report at all. A search of The Los Angeles Times archives likewise came up empty.

The New York Times had a dispatch from London. But it laid the blame entirely on the British and French governments, as if the U.S. had nothing to do with the devastation of Libya on false pretenses. The U.S. gave the same false war rationale as the British and French did. But The New York Times never held U.S. officials to account for it.

Ignoring or downplaying a story is one way U.S. corporate media deliberately buries news critical of American foreign policy. It is often news vital for Americans to understand their government’s actions abroad, actions which could mean death or life for U.S. soldiers and countless civilians of other lands.

British newspapers widely covered the story. As did the International Edition of CNN, which has separate editors from CNN’s U.S. website. An online search found no domestic CNN story. There’s also no video online indicating that CNN domestic or CNN International television reported the story.

The Asia edition of The Wall Street Journal had a story. It’s not clear if it appeared in the U.S. edition. Newsweek ran a story online. But it does not mention the United States even once.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.
It is a black mark on the Congress’ two foreign affairs committees that neither undertook a similar inquiry (although congressional Republicans did obsess over the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which occurred about a year after the Obama administration facilitated the military overthrow and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi).

Voice of America, which broadcasts outside the United States, ran a story on its website about the British parliamentary report, though the article confined criticism of the U.S. to not being prepared for the aftermath, not for the intervention itself.

A thorough online search shows that The Nation magazine and several alternative news sites, including ConsortiumNews and Salon, appear to be the only U.S.-based media that accurately covered the blockbuster story that undermined the entire U.S. narrative for leaving Libya a failed state.

Rationale for an Attack

The United States peddled its false story of a coming genocide in Libya under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect to justify military intervention. On its face R2P appears to be a rare instance of morality in foreign and military policy: a coalition of nations with U.N. Security Council authorization would take military action to stop an impending massacre. It would have been hard to argue against such a policy in Libya if indeed its genuine purpose was to stop a massacre, after which the military operation would withdraw.

President Barack Obama at the White House with National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Samantha Power (right), his U.N. ambassador and a major advocate for R2P interventions. (Photo credit: Pete Souza)
But that is not where it ended. While arguing that intervention was necessary to stop a massacre in Libya, the real intent, as the British report says, was regime change. That’s not what American officials said at the outset and what corporate media reported.

“In the face of the world’s condemnation, [Libyan leader Moammar] Qadhafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people,” President Barack Obama told the nation on March 28, 2011. “Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted and killed. … Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.”

Hillary Clinton, who according to leaked emails was the architect of the attack on Libya, said four days earlier: “When the Libyan people sought to realize their democratic aspirations, they were met by extreme violence from their own government.”

Sen. John Kerry, at the time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chimed in: “Time is running out for the Libyan people. The world needs to respond immediately.”

Mustafa Abdul Jalil, head of a transitional council that the U.S., U.K. and France recognized as the legitimate Libyan government, pleaded for a no-fly zone. The University of Pittsburgh–educated Jalil was playing the same game as Ahmed Chalabi had in Iraq. They both sought U.S. military might to bring them to power. He said that if Gaddafi’s forces reached Benghazi they would kill “half a million” people. “If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Qadhafi’s regime, and his ships are not checked, we will have a catastrophe in Libya.”

Report Tells a Different Story

And yet the summary of the September 2016 Foreign Affairs Committee report says: “We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. … UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron talk at the G8 Summit in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, June 17, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The report further said: “Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Qadhafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. While [he] certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty.”

The committee pointed out that Gaddafi’s forces had taken towns from rebels without attacking civilians. On March 17, two days before NATO’s assault began, Gaddafi told rebels in Benghazi to “throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.” The Libyan leader “also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops,” the report said.

In another example, the report indicates that, after fighting in February and March in the city of Misrata, just one percent of people killed by the Libyan government were women or children. “The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Qadhafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians,” the report said.

How then could The New York Times and The Washington Post, the most influential American newspapers, either refuse to adequately cover or not cover at all a story of such magnitude, a story that should have been front page news for days? It was a story that undermined the U.S. government’s entire rationale for an unjustified attack that devastated a sovereign nation.

There can be only one reason the story was ignored: precisely because the report exposed a U.S. policy that led to a horrible crime that had to be covered up.

History Spiked

Defending U.S. policy appears to be the underlying motive of U.S. news coverage of the world. The Libya story is just one example. I’ve had personal experience of editors rejecting or changing stories because it would undermine U.S. foreign policy goals.

Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in 2014.
I twice pitched a story about a now declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document warning of the rise of a U.S.-backed Salafist principality in eastern Syria, intended to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, that could join with Iraqi extremists to become an “Islamic State,” two years before it happened. My story was twice rejected. It would have undermined the entire American narrative on the War on Terror.

On another occasion, I wrote several articles about the lead-up to a U.N. vote to grant Palestine Observer State status. In each article I mentioned that 130 countries already recognized Palestine as a state and many had diplomatic relations, including Palestinian embassies in their capitals. That essential fact in the story kept getting cut out.

Another story I wrote was spiked about the position Russia, Syria and Iran took on who was responsible for the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus in August 2013. The story also included an interview with a Congressman who demanded to see U.S. intelligence backing its accusation against Assad.

Telling both sides of a story is Journalism 101. But not evidently when the other side is a perceived enemy of the United States. There are only interests in international affairs, not morality. A journalist should not take sides. But American journalists routinely do in international reporting. They take the “American side” rather than neutrally laying out for the reader the complex clash of interests of nations involved in an international dispute.

Downplaying or omitting the adversary’s side of the story is a classic case of Americans explaining a foreign people to other Americans without giving a voice to those people, whether they be Russians, Palestinians, Syrians, Serbs, Iranians or North Koreans. Depriving a people of their voice dehumanizes them, making it easier to go to war against them.

One can only conclude that U.S. corporate media’s mission is not to tell all sides of an international story, or report news critical of U.S. foreign policy, but instead to push an agenda supporting U.S. interests abroad. That’s not journalism. That’s instead the job Winston Smith did.

Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of “How I Lost By Hillary Clinton” published by OR Books, from which part of this article was adapted. He can be reached at joelauria@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @unjoe._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum